Micromax to pay Rs 19,500 for not returning customer’s phone

Terming it guilty of deficiency in service, the district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed Micromax Informatics, its Sector 22-based dealer and its service centre to jointly pay `19,500 as compensation to a customer.

Terming it guilty of deficiency in service, the district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed Micromax Informatics, its Sector 22-based dealer and its service centre to jointly pay `19,500 as compensation to a customer.

Complainant Ajay Kumar, a resident of Sector 39, had submitted before the forum that he purchased a Micromax A190 mobile handset from Anubhav Enterprises, Sector 22, on August 11, 2014, for `11,500 with one-year warranty.

He alleged that the mobile phone kept developing glitches after purchase, and ultimately

Ajay Kumar, complainant its touchscreen stopped functioning on September 9, 2014, following which he took the phone for service to Micromax service centre - Future Communication, Sector 41 - on September 13.

The service centre replaced the touchscreen and returned it on September 20. But on September 22, the phone’s camera stopped functioning, and he again took it to the service centre, who returned it after repair on September 29.

On October 5, the mike of the phone stopped working and he again gave it for repair and got it back on October 16. But he realised that now the phone was not recognising the SIM card, following which he revisited the service centre on October 17.

The phone was returned on November 29 with the assurance that it was fully repaired.

However, Kumar’s troubles did not end there, and on November 30, the camera again stopped working and he returned the phone to the service centre. But a year and a half later, the phone was still with the centre.

Since officials from the service centre and the dealer did not file their reply, they were proceeded against ex parte.

Micromax Informatics while admitting that the phone was deposited with the authorised service centre, submitted that the camera of the handset was adjusted and necessary intimation was given to the customer, but he raised illegal demands and demanded replacement only. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on its part.

Disagreeing to the contention of the manufacturer, the forum stated that if it had informed the complainant regarding the repair of the mobile handset, it would have sent some written message to the complainant from its side, but it had not produced any such evidence.

“The complainant has been deprived of the possession of his mobile handset without any fault on his part. Re-occurrence of the fault(s) in the mobile handset in question, within two months of its purchase, points out towards the poor quality of the product and hence it proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused harassment to the complainant,” the order read.